Judas Delegates?

Is the Clinton campaign waging a cloak and dagger campaign to persuade pledged delegates to switch sides?

She continues to rule in the possibility by pointing out that the DNC allows delegates to vote for anyone they want.

But the campaigns themselves file delegate slates. The delegates chosen tend to be extremely committed supporters. Many of them will turn out to be campaign volunteers and respected local Democratic offiicials who supported the candidate early. It is certainly possible to try and convince a pledged delegate to change his or her mind, but the universe of pledged delegates are probably the stickiest supporters a candidate has.

Comments

Disgusting for her to do this. But she has run a disgusting campaign, so we should expect it. Hypocrisy around every corner with Hillary, both Clintons really.

Of course, they have to put forth this argument because IT'S THE ONLY ARGUMENT THEY HAVE THAT REALISTICALLY COULD GET HER THE NOMINATION!

Slash and burn, kitchen sink, the boiler, the Tanya Harding option.

This is what Hillary has become. It's sad and pathetic, but to those who have supported her should finally show them what she is really made of.

Posted by Eric Blair | March 26, 2008 5:04 PM

Clinton's Top donors send letter to Nancy Pelosi chastizing her about her stance on Superdelegates.

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the US House of Representatives

Office of the Speaker

H-232, US Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madame Speaker,

As Democrats, we have been heartened by the overwhelming response that our fellow Democrats have shown for our party’s candidates during this primary season. Each caucus and each primary has seen a record turnout of voters. But this dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.

During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier:

"I believe super-delegates have to use their own judgment and there will be many equities that they have to weigh when they make the decision. Their own belief and who they think will be the best president, who they think can win, how their own region voted, and their own responsibility.’”

Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party’s strongest nominee in the general election.

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

Sincerely,

Marc Aronchick

Clarence Avant

Susie Tompkins Buell

Sim Farar

Robert L. Johnson

Chris Korge

Marc and Cathy Lasry

Hassan Nemazee

Alan and Susan Patricof

JB Pritzker

Amy Rao

Lynn de Rothschild

Haim Saban

Bernard Schwartz

Stanley S. Shuman

Jay Snyder

Maureen White and Steven Rattner

Posted by Ezzy | March 26, 2008 5:04 PM

If she had any class or grace she'd have bowed out already, thereby ensuring a nice career as eminence grise in the senate and a lifetime spot atop Mt. Olympus. Instead, she's vying to become the most unpopular Democrat on Earth, not to mention the sorest loser on record.

Posted by tinisoli | March 26, 2008 5:06 PM

Two unsafe assumptions in your post:

1.

But the campaigns themselves file delegate slates.

I'm not convinced this happened everywhere, or that the delegate slates were complete, or that there aren't delegates who were elected who may have had the stature to get themselves elected without being backed by a specific candidate (for lack of a better term, "mini-superdelegates").

2.

Is the Clinton campaign waging a cloak and dagger campaign to persuade pledged delegates to switch sides?

The assumption here is that the Obama campaign isn't doing the same thing. Think again.

Posted by dry_fish | March 26, 2008 5:06 PM

This is an integral part of the "fog of nonsense". But here's the problem. Nobody's legally required to vote for anybody, so Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton are presumably equally likely to vote for anyone. It's still up in the air!

Posted by taricha | March 26, 2008 5:06 PM

Uh, so why the hell did I vote then?

Apparently, Idaho and me have something in common...neither of us count!

Posted by BLeigh | March 26, 2008 5:08 PM

Why does Hillary Clinton want to disenfranchise ALL of the voters of the states she lost by trying to get their delegates to vote for her instead of whom the people voted for?

Posted by Bryan | March 26, 2008 5:09 PM

Obama just picked up another superdelegate that Hillary can fail to flip:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/861889,032608lipinski.article

Posted by dsb | March 26, 2008 5:09 PM

The assumption here is that the Obama campaign isn't doing the same thing.

You're confusing pledged delegates to the national convention with delegates to county and state conventions (part of the caucus process).

Posted by lifelong democrat | March 26, 2008 5:13 PM

Funny, those big-wigs that wrote the letter to Speaker Pelosi don't seem to have a problem with the 100 or so superdelegates that committed to Clinton BEFORE A SINGLE VOTE WAS CAST IN IOWA.

Posted by Ready for change | March 26, 2008 5:16 PM

"Is the Clinton campaign waging a cloak and dagger campaign to persuade pledged delegates to switch sides?"

You tell us ambinder. Or are you just trying to smearing a possible dem nom for president? Looks like it.

Posted by hadenough | March 26, 2008 5:35 PM

It seems pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is morphing into George W. Bush, Jr.

First, her judgment: she and George both have dogged determination in the face of all odds. More importantly, Hillary doesn't seem to listen to anyone beyond her immediate advisers, just as George doesn't, and she is willing to go forward with her plans no matter what the facts show, just as George did. Is the Democratic nomination becoming the Irag war revisited?

Second, she has no regard for the rules. In her most recent statements, she isn't just implying but stating straight out that pledged delegates can switch at will. Pledging doesn't seem to mean much to her. Delegates in her nomination seem to be like chads in the Florida 2000. Are they really pledged or just hanging? Should we count them? When should we count them... No matter what, it appears that the counting should be done by Hillary's Rules and no one else's.

Third, what about secrecy? Could there be a more behind-close-doors candidate that Bush? Yet, even he releases his tax returns when he was a candidate -- what is it that Hillary is trying to hide? Is it how much or where from or ??? I'm sure there must be a way to make copies available pretty quickly, but maybe there are some major "redactions" that need to happen before things are public.

Maybe there really is something to the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton Dynasty. They are beginning to seem a lot more like each other every day.

Posted by John | March 26, 2008 7:14 PM

talk about Clinton fatigue -- I'd say right now it's Clinton EXHAUSTION? When does Hillary the energizer bunny turn off???

Posted by Frank | March 26, 2008 7:17 PM

The batteries came from her electric toys?

Posted by D | March 26, 2008 9:22 PM

The reason Hillary camp keeps reminding everyone that delegates can switch? Because even if the superdelegates line up for Obama in June, she will have laid an argument for staying in until the convention. Obama will become
the "presumptive nominee" and the gloves will come off from the Republicans. If Obama tanks in the polls over the summer and starts to seem unelectable, it won't be too late to choose Clinton. It's a very smart strategy.

Posted by lex | March 26, 2008 10:40 PM

Long Live Democracy! Any historian will tell you how, in the 1800s in Europe, governments were chosen by a small number of powerful rich males while little people and women were said to be too stupid to understand politics.
Want to read another interesting piece about Clinton and the little people?
Go to: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/hillary-clinton-and-walm_b_93638.html

Posted by Pedro G. | March 27, 2008 6:12 AM

I think, the thing sickens me the most is how the Clintons are destroying the reputation of Richardson merely out of spite and revenge.

Posted by wolf | March 27, 2008 1:53 PM

Hillary Clinton: "The conscience of the Party"

Bill Clinton: "The life of the party"

President McCain..........PRICELESS!

Posted by hombre | March 27, 2008 5:18 PM